list_theses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a topic-scoping constraint but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering behavior, or interaction with evidence sources.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with the primary action and resource front-loaded. It wastes no words, but the listing of 'IDs, dimensions and report evidence' is somewhat awkwardly packed into the sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description covers the core listing intent. However, the important cutoff_date parameter is unexplained, and the meaning of 'report evidence' and 'dimensions' is left vague, so an agent may not know what to expect beyond the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It only reinforces that the tool works for 'one topic,' which maps to the topic field, but it entirely omits the cutoff_date parameter and its meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('List') and a distinct resource ('structured investment theses') with a specified scope ('for one topic'). It differentiates this from search-oriented siblings by focusing on theses rather than reports or news, though the phrase 'IDs, dimensions and report evidence' is slightly ambiguous about what exactly is returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_research_reports or read_evidence. It only implies that the tool works for one topic, without stating exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios for sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.